“未来，我们最强劲的增长预期将来自海外市场——而且，我说这话代表的还是美国中西部的一家农业公司，”蓝多湖公司（Land O'Lakes）总裁兼CEO克里斯•波利西斯基说道。这家公司的名字让人联想起著名画家诺曼•洛克威尔笔下的奶牛和奶油搅拌器，而不是马拉维的乡村集市（其实后者才是他心里一直惦记的地方）。

    在近期参加美国全球领导力联盟（Global Leadership Coalition）会议时，波利西斯基表达了上述观点。最近，这一观点引起了越来越多的美国CEO们的反响。他的话也直指一个显而易见的事实，只不过华盛顿那些目光短浅的政治领袖们一直视而不见罢了：那就是美国公司不再把本土消费者视为业务增长的催化剂，转而押宝于海外的新兴市场。

    换句话说，美国就业市场能否出现增长，关键在于能否将更多的美国货卖给其他国家的中产阶级。

    一直以来，大手大脚的美国消费者都是全球经济的推动者，也是经济繁荣（当然也包括经济萧条）背后的发动机。但从现在起很长一段时间内，美国人得扎紧自己的钱袋子了。盖洛普公司（Gallup）报告称，美国人均开支远远低于2008年水平，这将成为“新的常态”。2011年7月的一份哈里斯民意调查（Harris Poll）显示，越来越多的人开始缩减开支，项目涉及从电子产品到理发等各方面。美国的个人储蓄率也出现上升。由于房贷的首付比例恢复到20%，养房子也日益困难，更不用说用信用卡分期购买游艇和平板电视了。

    企划师们越来越清楚地意识到，他们的潜在客户95%将来自美国境外，并且都来自发展迅猛的发展中国家——比如亚洲和拉丁美洲【世界银行（the World Bank）预测，这两个地区今年的经济增长率将达到4.5%】，以及非洲（该地区的总日常开支已经超过了印度）。

    开发这些市场可以帮助美国创造必要的工作岗位。为了让美国人涉足这些市场，美国必须签订三个相关的贸易协定，但这个问题至今也没有引起国会的重视——这在很大程度上是因为工会从中作梗。虽然白宫口头上高呼要扩大出口，但俄亥俄州共和党参议员、前美国贸易代表罗布• 波特曼的话或许直接指明了问题的要害。他引用世界银行的统计数据，向《财富》杂志（Fortune）阐明了自己的观点：“说起出口在GDP中的比例，我们与埃塞俄比亚持平，远远低于其他与我们存在贸易关系的发达国家，以及中国和韩国，而和那些我们希望通过韩美自由贸易协定扩大贸易的国家相比，我们也处于下风。”

    当然，这种情况一部分是由于历史和地理原因造成的：美国消费市场巨大，同时缺少类似欧洲那样的区域融合。加拿大等国与美国情况类似，但其出口在总体经济中的比例也远远高于美国。这样一来就丢掉了大量的潜在商机。前美国贸易代表、世界银行现任行长罗伯特•佐利克表示：“美国公司在许多地区都具有强大的竞争力。几乎每到一地，【当地】人都会问及在基础设施项目引入私人资本的渠道，”——医疗系统即是其中之一。他举例说，德国的中小型工程公司就非常擅长开发这些市场。

    “Our best future growth prospects are overseas -- and I say this as an agriculture company based in the Midwest." So says Chris Policinski, president and CEO of Land O'Lakes, a name that conjures up Norman Rockwell images of milk cows and butter churns, not village markets in Malawi (which is what he has in mind).

    Policinski's declaration, made at a recent meeting of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, echoes what we are hearing from growing numbers of American CEOs these days -- and goes to the heart of a truism that has largely escaped the attention of Washington's myopic political leadership: U.S. companies are giving up on the American consumer as a catalyst for growth, preferring instead to bet on emerging markets overseas.

    In other words, one key for U.S. job growth lays in selling more of our stuff to a non-American middle class.

    The profligate American buyer, long the driver of the global economy and the engine behind booms (and busts), is taking a big break from spending. Gallup reports a "new normal" of everyday spending far below 2008 levels. A July 2011 Harris Poll shows more and more people skimping on everything from electronic goodies to haircuts. Personal savings rates are up. And with down payments on mortgages back at 20% levels, it's hard to afford a home, let alone use it as a credit card to buy boats and flat screen TVs.

    Business strategists increasingly recognize that not only are 95% of their potential consumers living outside U.S. borders, they are living in high-growth developing countries -- places like Asia and Latin America (where the World Bank forecasts 4.5% economic growth this year) and Africa (where total household spending already exceeds that of India).

    Tapping into those markets will help produce needed jobs. But the three trade agreements designed to put an American toe in those kinds of waters continue to languish in Congress -- largely because of spurious union demands. And while the White House gives lip service to expanding exports, it's instructive to listen to Ohio Republican Senator, and former U.S. Trade Representative, Rob Portman, who uses World Bank statistics to offer this observation to Fortune: "We are tied with Ethiopia in terms of our exports as a percentage of GDP, well below any of the other developed countries we trade with and well below China and Korea and countries we hope to trade with more through the Korean trade agreement."

    Certainly part of that is history and geography: America's own massive consumer market, and lack of regional integration (like Europe). But even countries like Canada rank far higher in exports as a percentage of the economy.

    That leaves a lot of potential business on the table. "There are places where American companies can be very, very competitive," says Robert Zoellick, former U.S. trade ambassador and now president of the World Bank. "I can't go anywhere without [local] people asking how to get private capital into infrastructure projects" -- like health care systems. Germany's small and medium sized engineering firms are adept at tapping those markets, he notes as an example.

国外刺激销售，国内促进就业

    奥巴马总统和他的幕僚们并不鼓励跨国公司，他们现在总是用老套的长篇大论，批评那些公司“把工作机会输出到海外”。实际上，为了进入海外市场，跨国公司确实建立了海外业务，雇佣了外国员工。但与此同时，这些业务也在美国本土创造了新的工作岗位。

    俄亥俄州凯尼恩学院（Kenyon College）的经济学家威廉姆•梅里克指出，1997年到2007年的十年里，美国公司在海外创造了380万个工作岗位，但与此同时，它们在美国国内也创造了210万个工作岗位。

    根据梅里克的统计，有三分之二总部位于美国的跨国公司，其国外子公司和美国本土母公司在岗位数量上的增加和减少是同步的；仅有很少一部分公司，其海外工作岗位的增加是以牺牲美国本土就业机会为代价的。

    今年秋天，美国国会将会大幅削减联邦国际事务预算，其中包括为支持美国出口的代理机构提供的资金，以及用于资助贫穷国家的预算等。作为控制政府开支而采取的措施之一，此次预算削减的一部分顺理成章且很有必要。但在经济危机之下，立法者也可能禁不住诱惑，对美国在海外的领导地位视而不见，反而转向国内寻求经济发展机遇。

    国际事务预算的一部分（与公众的观点相反，仅占预算的1.5%）被用于支持出口公司，比如提供风险保障与资金的海外私人投资公司（Overseas Private Investment Corp.）、用于协助出口融资的美国进出口银行（Export Import Bank），以及负责组织贸易考察的美国贸易与发展署（U.S. Trade and Development Agency）。此外，人道主义援助也能给美国带来收益。

    在近期的一次市政会议上，佛罗里达州参议员马可•鲁比欧以美国前总统布什的抗艾计划为例，强调了人道主义援助的重要性：“如果方法得当，这类项目可以通过一种积极的方式扩大美国的影响力，”抗艾计划拯救了400多万人的生命，使美国在非洲获得了良好的声誉。

    尽管这位颇受欢迎的共和党人士（茶党拥护者）发表了这样的评论，但狭隘主义依然盘踞在国会山。佐利克表示：“我去国会，质问他们将采取什么措施，提升美国的竞争力。但他们并未将眼光投向海外。私营部门却早已看清形势，在这方面将政府公共部门远远抛在了身后。”

    当然，遥遥领先的还有一个国家：中国。

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

International sales, domestic jobs

    Instead of encouraging multinational business, President Obama and his advisers offer their now familiar tirade against companies "shipping jobs overseas." In fact, companies do build overseas operations, and hire foreign workers, to tap offshore markets. But those operations also produce jobs here at home.

    William Melick, an economist at Ohio's Kenyon College, notes that the 3.8 million offshore jobs created between 1997 and 2007 were complemented by 2.1 million produced by those same firms inside American borders.

    Melick calculated that for two-thirds of U.S. based multinationals, jobs in foreign affiliates and the U.S. parent company move up and down together; only in a small minority does foreign employment rise at the expense of U.S. jobs.

    The federal international affairs budget -- funding everything from agencies supporting U.S. exports to aid to poor countries -- faces sharp cuts from Congress this fall. Part of that is a natural, and necessary, part of any serious effort to rein in government spending. But there is also the temptation -- at a time of economic crisis -- for lawmakers to turn inward rather than seek economic opportunity in continued American leadership abroad.

    Part of the international affairs budget (which, contrary to public perception, is only 1.5% of the budget) supports exporting companies, like the Overseas Private Investment Corp., providing risk insurance and capital, the Export Import Bank to help finance exports, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency that hosts trade missions. And humanitarian aid can redound to America's benefit.

    "If done right, it spreads American influence in a positive way," Florida Senator Marco Rubio told a recent town hall, citing the widespread goodwill in Africa that resulted from President Bush's anti-AIDS initiative, credited with saving 4 million lives.

    Despite comments like those from a popular Republican tea partier, parochialism is settling in on Capitol Hill. "I go to the Hill and ask what they're doing to make America more competitive," Zoellick says. "They're not looking beyond our borders. The private sector is so much farther ahead than the public sector in recognizing what's happening."

    And there's someone else that's farther ahead on that score: China.